FRES 2: The Revenge aka MIV

Agree that the stores that leave the stores need to be in a serv condition when they get to the end user. The trouble is industry and the law does not allow a 55t truck to trundle around the battlefield. You probably can get a armoured truck that protects both the drivers and load but now you have a fully enclosed load surrounded by some sort of armour which also needs to be transported easily (ignoring the bridges and rubbish tracks the 55t thing has to go down) and then arrive with its precious cargo inside needing some sort of MHE to reach inside and pull it out. Even in 20ft guise it wont be easy. Yes we have MHE to "reach" inside but its limited to weight and there is not a lot of them. Funnily enough i am on a mil logistics conference now and i suspect this sort of issue will be brought up by the military attendees. But i go back to my original point, weight is everything. One of the last things i did before i left the Army was involved with the HLDC project which was to replace DROPS and other Log trucks such as the old GST fuel tanker. The requirement was a 60,000ltr fuel truck with armour on the cab and "investigate armoured load". The civilian experts (lets face it they know what they are talking about) came back "no problem"......as long as you know you will be carrying 20,000ltrs during peacetime due to weight issues and add about 50k to the price for the work we will need to do to the COTS chassis you insist on.

Then someone needs to let our potential enemies know not to break the law.

At some point someone needs to look very seriously at the issue of G4 in a deep battlefield( or what either the buzz words are now) and spend some time and maybe some money working out how we do logistics in an environment where an enemy can reach far behind the FEBA.
 
Then someone needs to let our potential enemies know not to break the law.

At some point someone needs to look very seriously at the issue of G4 in a deep battlefield( or what either the buzz words are now) and spend some time and maybe some money working out how we do logistics in an environment where an enemy can reach far behind the FEBA.
Of course.

How about you work out how we double the Defence budget and spend the increase on protected logistics?

Better to spend some time on driving down the demand.
 
Then someone needs to let our potential enemies know not to break the law.

At some point someone needs to look very seriously at the issue of G4 in a deep battlefield( or what either the buzz words are now) and spend some time and maybe some money working out how we do logistics in an environment where an enemy can reach far behind the FEBA.
You in Krakow by any chance?
 
Funnily enough i was at a German manufactuer the other week and they showed me ballistic protection that covers a 10,000ltr fuel tank for the military. The issue was that was the limit for the capacity with this protection on and it only stops AK type rounds. Well to be fair i can show you tens of pictures of Afghan civilian tankers with bullet holes in. No explosion, just fuel leaking out and you can stop that with a driver applied stick of wood....i kid you not. So whilst you could possibly stop bullets....frag from some other heavy ordinance, i refer you to my weight issue.
A question: Do you need to stop more than frag or SAA? Because if your truck is getting hit with something manly, then its going to be knackered no matter what.
 
Do you need to stop frag or SAA?

Its a tanker, not a tank.
The argument further up thread was getting supplies up front that have been ventilated tends to not make them much use. There is also the argument that the Russians might have quite a bit of arty to throw about, so the occasional salvo lobbed in the general area of the MSR might provide some dividends. At least that seemed to be the gist of the discussion.
 

Majorpain

War Hero
The argument further up thread was getting supplies up front that have been ventilated tends to not make them much use. There is also the argument that the Russians might have quite a bit of arty to throw about, so the occasional salvo lobbed in the general area of the MSR might provide some dividends. At least that seemed to be the gist of the discussion.
Ok, but you have armour or you have payload. And the less payload you have the more trucks you need, bigger target, more real estate, more REME etc...... I just dont think anyone's going to get too upset in the unlikely event a couple of ration packs or jerry cans get fragged.
 
Ok, but you have armour or you have payload. And the less payload you have the more trucks you need, bigger target, more real estate, more REME etc...... I just dont think anyone's going to get too upset in the unlikely event a couple of ration packs or jerry cans get fragged.
This is a rather good point. If you armour your transport you lose logistic capacity without the enemy having to fire a shot.

I can see points on both sides of the argument, but the answer seems to be very situation dependent.
 

rabfan

Old-Salt
IMG_20200128_225247.jpg


A sexy bit of kit!

Image stolen off nicholas drummond on twitter. 2 man crew, 30rounds, would be exactly what strike bdes need. (Which means we wont get it....)
 

Majorpain

War Hero
View attachment 446382

A sexy bit of kit!

Image stolen off nicholas drummond on twitter. 2 man crew, 30rounds, would be exactly what strike bdes need. (Which means we wont get it....)
Man Archer - In service, Big vehicle, more stability than the Swedish bendy ones. (Lesson learnt!)
KMW Boxer - CAD Drawing, Smaller vehicle, Stabilisers? Nah, it'll be fine.....

Even if they can get it firing supercharges without the suspension falling to bits, its still going to be eye watering expensive....
 
This is a rather good point. If you armour your transport you lose logistic capacity without the enemy having to fire a shot.

I can see points on both sides of the argument, but the answer seems to be very situation dependent.

It's two options. Lightly armoured transport capable of transporting a reasonable load(whatever that is) whilst surviving harassing fire on MSRs or the means of a)preventing the enemy locating said MSRs and b) being capable of smacking the enemy artillery able to reach said MSRs so hard & so fast they don't want to play.

Both need money & long term intent to actually do some real work instead of pissing around on SJAR moments and worrying if an MTP barrack shirt is smart enough.
 

rampant

LE
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
View attachment 446382

A sexy bit of kit!

Image stolen off nicholas drummond on twitter. 2 man crew, 30rounds, would be exactly what strike bdes need. (Which means we wont get it....)
This is the revised turret so it's lower in height, the RWS is stowable so now it's able to fit in C17 and A400
 
Man Archer - In service, Big vehicle, more stability than the Swedish bendy ones. (Lesson learnt!)
KMW Boxer - CAD Drawing, Smaller vehicle, Stabilisers? Nah, it'll be fine.....

Even if they can get it firing supercharges without the suspension falling to bits, its still going to be eye watering expensive....
BOXER 155mm doesn't need stabilisers, even at 3 and 9 o'clock. I've seen it firing - impressive. Can fire Vulcano out to 70km.
 
BOXER 155mm doesn't need stabilisers, even at 3 and 9 o'clock. I've seen it firing - impressive. Can fire Vulcano out to 70km.
Cor.
I take it we have systems that can reliably find targets at that range and pass that info back ? Bloody useful if we have.
 
On the logistics subthread, did anyone else see the LOGBOTS paper and think it was nowhere near as good as it was made out to be?
 

Latest Threads

Top